1 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 2:19-cv-02664-MMB Document 235 Filed 09/16/20 Page 1 of 101 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KRISTEN BEHRENS, ESQ., as CIVIL ACTION Administratrix, et al. NO. 19-2664 v. ARCONIC, INC., et al. MEMORANDUM RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS Baylson, J. September 16, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 II. Factual Background: The Grenfell Tower, the Fire, and the Aftermath ................................. 5 A. The Grenfell Tower and Refurbishment ........................................................................... 5 B. June 14, 2017 Grenfell Tower Fire ................................................................................... 6 C. The Public Inquiry ............................................................................................................ 7 D. Grenfell Litigation in the UK............................................................................................ 8 III. Overview of Behrens Litigation ............................................................................................... 9 A. The Complaint .................................................................................................................. 9 B. Theories of Liability ........................................................................................................ 11 C. Prior Procedural History ................................................................................................. 14 IV. Forum Non Conveniens Discovery, Briefing, and Argument ............................................... 15 A. FNC Discovery ............................................................................................................... 15 1. FNC Discovery From Arconic .................................................................................. 17 a. Arconic’s Corporate Structure and the BCS Reporting Chain ............................. 21 b. Arconic’s Control Over AAP SAS’s Capital Expenditures ................................. 22 c. Post-Fire Behavior of Arconic, Inc. ..................................................................... 22 2. FNC Discovery From Whirlpool ............................................................................... 23 B. FNC Briefing................................................................................................................... 23 C. FNC Argument ................................................................................................................ 24 V. Expert Evidence ..................................................................................................................... 25 A. Defendants’ Experts ........................................................................................................ 25 1. Declaration of Andrew Prynne, QC .......................................................................... 25 2. Declaration of Paul Darling, QC ............................................................................... 27 3. Affidavit of Professor Adrian Briggs ........................................................................ 28 B. Plaintiffs’ Experts ........................................................................................................... 28 1. Declaration of Professor Dan Sarooshi, QC (UK Expert) ......................................... 28 1 Case 2:19-cv-02664-MMB Document 235 Filed 09/16/20 Page 2 of 101 2. Declaration of Phillippa Kaufmann, QC (UK Expert) .............................................. 29 3. Declaration of Joel Donovan, QC (UK Expert) ........................................................ 30 4. Report of Manny D. Pokotilow, Esq. (US Expert) .................................................... 30 5. Report of Mary Frantz (US Expert) ........................................................................... 31 6. Report of Professor Kenneth Lehn, Ph.D (US Expert) ............................................. 31 VI. Legal Standard ...................................................................................................................... 32 VII. Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 34 A. Forum Non Conveniens Analysis .................................................................................. 34 1. Availability of Adequate Alternative Forum ............................................................ 35 a. Defendants Are Amenable to Process in England: Conditions on Dismissal ..... 36 b. Plaintiffs’ Claims are Cognizable ....................................................................... 38 c. Differences Do Not Render English Courts Inadequate ..................................... 38 i. Differences in Discovery ................................................................................ 38 ii. Differences in Damages and Punitive Damages ............................................. 40 2. Amount of Deference to Accord Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum ............................... 46 3. Private and Public Interest Factors ......................................................................... 49 a. Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof (Private Interest) ......................... 49 i. US-Based Evidence ...................................................................................... 50 ii. UK-Based Evidence ..................................................................................... 52 b. Availability of and Cost of Obtaining Witnesses (Private Interest) .................. 56 c. View of Premises (Private Interest) ................................................................... 62 d. Other Practical Problems (Private Interest) ....................................................... 63 i. Absent Third-Parties ..................................................................................... 63 ii. The Timeline for the Public Inquiry ............................................................. 69 iii. Parallel Civil Litigation in the UK ............................................................... 71 e. Administrative Difficulties (Public Interest) ...................................................... 73 f. Local Interest (Public Interest) ........................................................................... 73 g. Issues With Regard to Choice of Law (Public Interest) ..................................... 80 h. Jury Duty (Public Interest) .................................................................................. 84 4. FNC Discovery In This Court ................................................................................ 85 B. Summary of Forum Non Conveniens Analysis............................................................ 91 C. Dismissal Is Consistent with Outcomes in Leading International Accident Cases ..... 93 1. Piper ........................................................................................................................ 93 2. Other Leading International Accident Cases .......................................................... 96 D. Whirlpool and the Possibility of Severance ................................................................. 99 VIII. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 101 2 Case 2:19-cv-02664-MMB Document 235 Filed 09/16/20 Page 3 of 101 I. Introduction1 In the early morning hours of June 14, 2017, a fire was sparked in Flat 16 of the Grenfell Tower, a high-rise apartment building in West London. The fire started in a fridge-freezer located in the kitchen of Flat 16. Kitchen fires are not uncommon, and this fire should have been contained within the apartment. Firefighters responded quickly and extinguished the flames in Flat 16 within minutes. Unfortunately, by that time the fire had already escaped and reached the combustible cladding that covered the outer façade of the entire Tower. Once the fire was established in the cladding, it quickly raced up the east side of the building and got to the roof. The flames then spread down and back up the outer walls of the structure. In under three hours, the entire Grenfell Tower was engulfed in flames. Seventy-one people perished in the Grenfell Tower fire the night of June 14, 2017. An additional resident who escaped the fire and suffered from smoke inhalation died months later. Hundreds of residents and visitors present in the Tower the night of the fire experienced profound physical, psychological, and emotional injuries. The fire burned for more than sixty hours before firefighters were able to completely extinguish the flames. When the fire finally stopped burning and the sprawling damage was assessed, it was determined that the fire at the Grenfell Tower was Britain’s deadliest residential fire since World War II. Public outcry was swift. The morning after the fire, then-Prime Minister Theresa May commissioned a Public Inquiry to investigate the fire and its causes. The Public Inquiry, which is chaired by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, divided its work into two phases. Phase 1 was completed in October 2019 and examined the events that occurred the night of June 14, 2017. Phase 2 is 1 The following narrative is drawn from the Phase 1 Report published by the Public Inquiry on October 30, 2019. (ECF 74.) 3 Case 2:19-cv-02664-MMB Document